LKP recently held a meeting of interested parties kindly hosted at the British Property Federation, including attendees from the BPF, DCLG, property tribunal, London mayor’s office, RICS, FPRA, LEASE and Tanfield Chambers.

Both ARMA and ARHM were invited but did not attend.

The views below are not intended to represent those of the attendees but reflect the concerns raised by LKP.

The hope is that the joint signatures and others will be able to make a joint submission along with submissions directly reflecting the concerns of each of the groups.

LKP is concerned that the key statement in the discussion paper:

“We understand that on the whole the guidelines work well, particularly in respect of individual blocks. However, we are aware that some difficulties can occur in larger blocks/developments and some mixed use blocks.”

This may face a number of problems:

1) The current guidance does not fall directly a guidance issues under s29 of the Act but is the courts’ procedural guidance that dates back to 1980. The guidance only directly applies when the leaseholders have reached the point where they are forced to take matters to the tribunal for a determination.

The fact that the guidance was drafted in 1980 pre-dates the move towards larger and mixed-use developments. As procedural guidance the courts are inevitably constrained from initiating substantive policy change.

2) In various parts of the sector, the leaseholder is faced by a variety of different terms and conditions that landlords deem themselves entitled to impose in the absence of practical guidance from DCLG.

3) Unfortunately, the DCLG discussion paper omits to mention the one real power available to a recognised tenants association and perhaps the real reason landlords often oppose these groups -the right of an RTA to appoint a surveyor (at the leaseholders own cost) who can then look at all matters which may give rise to a service charge.

The meeting considered cases such as West India Quay where the landlord felt it relevant to spend £75,000 in direct legal costs seeking to oppose an RTA even though they represented an overwhelming proportion of all the residential leasehold flats.

4) The meeting also considered major problems in the right of leaseholders to obtain details of their fellow owners so they could be contacted to help form an RTA or indeed the logistics of ever being able to form a group on a very large site.

The DCLG discussion paper advised “Information is already obtainable by exercising other rights such as section 11 of the Leasehold Reform Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 but:”

The lawyers letter from Oslwang mentioned in our Discovery Docklands East case claimed leaseholders have no rights under s11 was considered by the group. While Olswang were wrong it was suggested there was a lack of clarity on some of the rights provided under s11.

5) There is no consistency in the rules applied by landlords to RTA’s. Concerns were expressed that some landlords actively seek to discourage individuals from joining a residents association and even those who do not put obstacles in the way vary rarely point out why residents may want to form an officially recognised rather than informal group.

6) There is confusion caused by use of the term “recognised tenants’ association”. Many leaseholders believe themselves to be property owners, or at least leaseholders, rather than “tenants”. Indeed, many rent out these properties to “real” tenants on short-term assured tenancies.

This problem is also reflected by the confusing term “tenants” in the DCLG, where it is limited to the social and private rental sector while “leaseholder” is preferred for those who own a leasehold.

But, of course, in law leaseholders are just long-term tenants.

7) Concern was raised that there is no legitimate reason to set the default barrier to forming an RTA at 60% of all residential leaseholds in a site especially when there is no consideration made for the fact that those who choose not to join or prevent the formation of an RTA may be flats owned by the landlord.

More commonly, those who do not join are just leaseholders who simply cannot be contacted by the group.

LKP would argue there is not even a strong reason at least 50% of owners are needed unless there is clear evidence of two competing groups on a site. To our understanding the number of occasions where two groups exist is extremely rare.

8) Some landlords seek to impose rules are not included in the formal procedural guidelines. In the social sector some landlords demand the right to attend initial meetings when officers are elected, others demand proof of membership each year, there is no clarity on the obligation for a paid membership, no consistency in the period of recognition.

10) There are a number of inconsistencies between various of the government documents.

11) The inconsistent between number of members to form an RTA and the power’s provided under other laws which apply to the sector. It takes 50% of residents to form an RTM or to enfranchise which then provided far more powers than an RTA. The powers provided for a TMO to allow the social sector tenants to manage their sites requires only 20% of members to participate. So why does and RTA need 60%?

12) The argument that an RTA needs such a large membership because it must be “representative” fails to accept that an RTA has no powers to impose anything on those who are not members. It may as a group make recommendations on the appointment of a manager (in certain limited circumstances) but the landlord is not obliged to follow this recommendation. Almost all of the other powers mentioned in the discussion document are open to individual leaseholders.

Some of the suggestions made at the meeting:

1) There is no point in simply updating guidance when it may need the law to change to allow the full information needed by leaseholders to easily form a leaseholder group.

2) The government should actively consider that a recognised group should exist by default on all sites and only become unrecognised if leaseholders actively choose to withdraw.

3) That the percentage of membership needed to form a recognised group should exclude all properties owned by the landlord.

4) That any commercial element also be excluded from consideration because any issues they may raise would not fall under the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

5) That there be a standard set of guidance from DCLG to discourage landlords inventing a range of alternative models with different rules.

Contact LKP

The leasehold game is weighted against ordinary home-owning leaseholders, who aren’t professional players. LKP was set up to redress the balance, to help you win your disputes or at least avoid disasters.

If you have a leasehold problem, you can email sok@leaseholdknowledge or take a chance on calling 07808 328 230.

MPs don’t like what they see …

Corbynite Labour MP Kate Osamor, who asked a series of parliamentary questions on behalf of residential freehold fund Long Harbour, has barred a prominent leasehold activist from her Twitter feed. Baz Jafar, a doubling ground rent leaseholder, found he was blocked from his Edmonton MP’s official Twitter feed yesterday after raising the issue of the […]

Controversial leasehold entrepreneur Dudley Joiner was named in the House of Commons today, and Roger Southam, chair of the Leasehold Advisory Service, was invited to retire. The remarks came from Sir Peter Bottomley in the debate on the Regulation of Property Agents. Sir Peter also named Barry Weir, a Sussex-based park home landlord who employed […]

Ground rent scandals

The new chief executive of McCarthy and Stone John Tonkiss is delighted the government has caved in over retirement housing ground rents, while announcing strategic changes that were prompted by the prospect of this reform. The company argued strongly in favour of ground rents because it was disadvantaged by having to provide communal areas at […]

Bellway Homes, which had a demonstration at one of its sites on Saturday opposing leasehold houses and onerous ground rents, has put out a leaflet to allay potential buyers’ concerns. Headed “Information about leasehold properties”, the document provides little useful information and is highly misleading. The first problem comes in the second sentence: “Sale by […]

UPDATE June 8 2017: LKP has received the following statement from Pete Redfern, CEO of Taylor Wimpey: Dear Mr O’Kelly, Thank you for your email dated 17 May. In August 2009, we entered into a contract to sell the freehold of our Chancel Park development to Fairthatch GR Limited. As a result, Taylor Wimpey was […]

Grenfell cladding

APPG, April 26 The chief executive of FirstPort welcomed more professionalism in the residential property management sector, especially when dealing with vitally important issues such as tower blocks with defective cladding. Nigel Howell also told the APPG on April 26 how his company responded to the discovery of Grenfell cladding at Citiscape in Croydon, where […]

In yet another retreat by plc house builders, the Aussie giant Lendlease is stumping up to pay to remove the Grenfell cladding at Vallea Court and Cypress Place, in Manchester’s Green Quarter. Before government ministers start talking rubbish about “freeholders doing the decent thing” – or worse, describing these speculators in residential freehold income streams […]

When leaseholders unite …

This is the first of 3 articles looking at the history of the RTA project and the findings of the most recent consultation. The stated objective of Ministers since 2014 is to make it easier to form a formal residents group known as a Recognised Tenants Association (RTA). LKP has argued from the outset that […]

Disgraceful …

These issues were raised by Sir Peter Bottomley in the Queen’s Speech debate yesterday Let me turn to other issues that come up for Back Benchers. I pick up causes, one of which came about as a result of an incident in my constituency regarding leasehold, when some elderly, frail and poor people found themselves […]